Changes coming for Hoosiers on Snap and Medicaid.

Leaders seek answers about high utility costs and legislation will impact who can get a CDL.

From the television studios at WFYI Public Media.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending February 27th, 2026.

Indiana Week in Review is produced.

By WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

As the Indiana legislative session wraps up, a bill to tighten eligibility for the state's Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs is heading to the governor.

As Ben Thorp reports, Republicans made the bill a priority and say it will root out waste and fraud in Indiana's welfare systems.

Republicans say the bill brings Indiana in line with new federal welfare work requirements and eligibility checks, while also inserting checks on immigration status.

Democrat Shelli Yoder says the measure is more punitive than federal changes and will kick eligible Hoosiers from programs.

We can align with federal law without trying to.

Outflank it at the expense.

Of our.

Own.

People.

Bill author Chris Garten says.

Making the program strict will protect those who need it the most.

We brought this bill to make sure that every single dollar goes to Hoosier, who is poor and or disabled.

The bill now heads to the governor.

Will this improve Hoosier lives?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann Delaney, Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes host of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capital Chronicle.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

so Ann will this legislation help prevent fraud?

I mean, that is just it is ridiculous to even claim that they do this every two years when they want to cut Medicaid.

Okay.

They want to cut people from having, health insurance at all.

Rokita this week announced that he had recouped $100 million in fraud, all from providers, which is where the fraud is.

That's all he can find.

Well, it's fine, but the point is, the big money is with the providers.

I don't know anybody who's dying or trying to lie their way into one of those nursing homes.

And nursing homes are the big expenditure for Medicare and Medicaid.

Excuse me.

And this is just designed to save money so they can do the vouchers.

They can do they can cut the business personal property tax and put their priorities in order at the expense of people who need help.

The Supplemental nutrition and the Medicare and Medicaid are important to people and working people who can't afford anything else.

And we're saying, no, you can't have that.

You can't have the prevention tools that'll help keep you healthy and keep you working.

You can't have the kinds of nutrition the children need to perform well in school.

It is just it's appalling.

But it shows that their priorities are always to help the rich and to help the business at the expense of people who need help.

Well, Mike, we have heard as well that, you know, a lot of people are off the Medicaid rolls as of last year, and more people may be, off the Medicaid rolls as well.

But some of the work requirements that are aligning with this legislation.

For certain populations, yeah.

That going to be, you know, something that is the goal of this bill.

Then maybe.

I think the point of the first question was, will this help people's lives?

That's not what they were going for.

Clearly.

Right.

What they were going for was the limited dollars that you have to help the people that qualify.

And we intended to help as a matter of public policy, are getting that or getting that money because that Medicaid budget, the reason we're here and we talked about this before is because the Medicaid budget is banging into every other priority, whether it's K-12 education or the other big buckets of of things that we spend, spend tax money on.

It's a $20 billion program.

We had a billion to it every year.

A lot of that's federal money, but a lot of that state money, it's still a $5 billion state expenditure, which is a huge percent of the, of the state budget.

So I think they're looking at they've looked at this and said, okay, well, one yeah, let's align And I understand Senator Yoder's point.

Let's align with the new federal requirements on work and eligibility.

And let's it's not a reasonable to go back and check once we let people on the rolls, did they still they still qualify for it.

That was that was Senator Holden's big thing.

He's like, we don't really ask them a second time whether or not they're, they're eligible once they're on.

And so we maybe need to do that.

but that was the goal.

Of course, this wasn't like the public message on sort of bill, what was never let's expand Medicaid.

You know, it was let's make sure that we know who's on this thing, this ballooning program and that the people that need it the most can get it.

Well, Niki, we did hear a lot about fixing these error rates and aligning, you know, with the federal, requirements, or is this bill going to be able to do that?

And will we I mean, ultimately save money if we don't have to pay back because of the error rates?

Yeah, I mean, they're going to basically verify people way more than we used to.

And there will be churn.

And everyone acknowledges that.

And I actually think it might end up costing the state a little extra because they're going to spend a lot of time with people and checking these same eligibility every, you know, three months, you know, and some people might miss sending in a letter and they'll get kicked off and then they'll have to reapply.

And so, you might catch a few.

Sure.

But, you know, that remains to be seen.

If we're going to save a ton of money on that.

Jon, we did hear a lot about, you know, the administrative, errors that are happening as well.

It's not necessarily, that that we have staffing issues and, and those things might come into consideration when we're trying to implement this statewide.

It's not exactly a well-oiled machine.

And I'm not trying to disparage any agency, but this is, I think part and parcel of these types of programs.

When you have people who are eligible, perhaps one month and not the next, you're going to have that, kind of churn as is is the word that was employed.

And I think that's that's exactly right.

And when you do have limited resources, when things are already stretched, then on the policing side of this operation, in terms of eligibility, reviews, you're going to have some problems.

it it's going to get worse before it gets better, I think, because we see the contraction of the pool of Americans who are relying on the Affordable Care Act.

they can't afford it anymore.

We've already seen the, roles, the group of contingent of Americans who have no health insurance.

Now they're just going to wing it going up.

and clearly, we'll have people, more people uninsured here.

so if somebody gets sick or injured, somebody has to pay somewhere, whether this is indigent care provided by hospitals which say they're already, tapped out.

you know, a lot of counties in Indiana don't even have, full fledged hospitals anymore.

It could have been worse, though, I will say, if I, if I under I've not read in detail the whole thing, but there was a provision that would have exacerbated, perhaps the childcare crisis in the state by having single parents.

I think the cutoff, if you had a child over six, you couldn't stay home and care for that child.

You had to go meet the work eligibility requirement, which means you're going to have a probably a minimum wage job where you're trying to pay for and care for that child.

Now, I think it's up to 14.

So I guess small reasons, the efforts for celebration, small reasons, because I really do think that could have been creating inadvertently yet another, problem, which we already have talked about at great length and that is child care.

I understand the daycare care, but part of this is if you have health care, you can get prevention, you can be diagnosed early, you can save costs.

It's the same kind of thing with this.

The whole mentality in the legislature, they think from election to election, they don't think of the long term costs.

They think budget to budget.

That's how government spends money.

They're not.

You're right.

They're not thinking that.

They're not thinking that dollar spent today is a dolllar saved is worth $10 tomorrow.

Yeah.

No.

Well the work requirements alone, what we've heard from Democrats are really going to, you know, be a burden on people.

And that's an argument that we've got to rethink Indiana for.

Health care completely.

And I frankly think we're going to have to go to a 1 ... a 1 payer because this system is terrible.

I mean, as a small business operator, I'm telling you, I'm paying a fortune a month for health care for my employees, a fortune.

And and that's that's ridiculous.

You go to a single payer and you keep driving that.

It's going to be driven by the employer community that more than ever is saying, get me out of this.

Business, right?

And you have to shop it all the time, because it may change a little bit, or you get an employee that, you know, a new employee and it's it's ridiculous.

Accident of history that employers in this country to begin with came from there.

It's no good.

But, yeah.

And it's and perhaps it isn't sustainable anymore at a time when, entrepreneurship, we hear so much about job creation, entrepreneurship, what keeps people probably from following their dreams.

Right.

The concern of people.

Well, the concern about the concern about holding.

Responsible and a failure.

But sometimes the cost is too much.

Quite a lot of work to do.

now it's time for our viewer feedback.

Every week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question will moves to tighten welfare eligibility, help save Indiana money?

Vote yes or no?

The last question posed to viewers should the state refused bail for more people in Indiana, 53% saying yes and 47% saying no.

Pretty close.

If you would like to take part in the poll, go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

A dozen lawmakers are sounding the alarm over utility costs.

They're asking state regulators for a transparent investigation into why gas and electric bills have spiked this past winter.

Zak Cassel reports.

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission responded to lawmakers concerns and will launch a, quote, investigative inquiry into energy affordability.

Andy Zay leads the commission.

He says part of the commission's job is to balance the cost to customers and the success of utility companies.

That balance feels dramatically out of whack right now for many, many Hoosiers.

The commission will hold a public hearing in March with five investor owned utility companies.

They include a A.E.S., CenterPoint energy, Duke Energy, Indiana Michigan Power Company, and NIPSCO or Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

So, Mike, will this provide Hoosiers with more answers about utility?

Yeah, that's the point.

you know, and the governor ran on this, he but the few kind of big things, he ran on property taxes, this and other things.

you know, he's making good on it.

He's he's turned over the the I.U.R.C., the regulatory commission, with new members, including chairman Zay was former state senator, but, yeah, I think the utility is in talking to him kind of leading up to this.

And, and throughout the weeks are all around the state House.

or like we're looking at this an opportunity for people to understand why this costs what it does, you know, and is there a way to rebalance or a case like they did with A.E.S., I think it was A.E.S.

Last year they reduced the reduced rate case.

They were asking or the increase they were asking for.

so there's always that push and pull between the industry and, and the commission.

but I think this is a good opportunity.

You put them on a hot seat and ask some questions.

I think this was a priority bill for Republicans.

And we did hear a lot about affordability being, you know, a top issue this session.

were we able to tackle that as far as utilities?

Well, you know, they have been in charge for the last 22 years.

Okay.

For the prior Utility Regulatory Commission, they didn't need a survey to figure out what was wrong.

They just need to look in the mirror.

I mean, they say yes to everything.

They allow you to put the, the plant you're building into the right place before it even operates.

All of these things are the reason.

So it can be built.

Well, yeah, but they have other ways to build besides putting it on the back of the right place.

But in addition to that, that's the reason we have the highest monthly, electric bill in the Midwest.

We do.

And we've had it for some time, and it's all on their watch.

So, you know, they need to think about that, and they need to think about the fact that at the state level and also at the national level, they discourage the development of wind and solar, which would lower the prices for these utilities.

So, you know, yeah, okay.

They're reacting and they ought to react because people are outraged by it and they ought to be outraged by it.

And it's all occurred on the Republican watch next week.

These are the same Republicans today that they were in 2004.

You think these are all the same people.

I think that in many cases they are the same.

Like that year we have seen legislation that has passed and that's moving that does address utility affordability.

will this the bill that that is going to probably become law help?

I mean, that bill will help some low income people with assistance programs and shutoffs during the summer months, but won't have a an appreciable effect on rates for several years.

I think the interesting part about this inquiry is, I mean, I just want everyone to be honest like I do.

I believe, for instance, consumers don't fully understand how how aging the infrastructure is for the companies.

It's like when you buy a house and 25 years in, you got to put a new roof on and you got to replace the air conditioner.

You know, there are certain parts of the grid that have to be replaced.

And we have put those off.

So that's part of what's driving it.

But I also think lawmakers need to be, you know, honest with themselves that they've allowed a lot of these increases in various bills over the years.

And yeah, the I.U.R.C for the past decade has been saying yes to every single rate increase.

Do we need more transparency, Jon?

I mean, that's what we heard.

Always transparency because there is confusion.

I mean, nobody really knows how, that utility, these types of utilities operate, even before you had the retail sector enter into this whole, framework.

But it's not only is are you replacing the the, the roof that's 25 years old.

The the square footage that that roof is covering is a lot bigger.

The structure is bigger than it used to be, too, because the demands are so much greater.

So it's it's not only trying to repair what, what's might be dilapidated and falling apart or inadequate to transmit, electricity.

But it's also trying to expand to, to meet capacity.

so transparency it will be good.

I think what the most significant thing here, I think the technical term, if you look it up probably in the administrative code, is shot across the bow, because this is saying, hey dear, dear utilities, you five entities, if you haven't figured it out already, people are concerned.

and so let's, let's all together say we've got to do something about this, and the and the sense of doing something is probably more important at this stage than, than what might that might actually come out of this.

Well, Indiana lawmakers also want to crack down on allowing certain immigrants to drive commercial trucks after a series of recent high profile fatal crashes, Caroline Beck reports on late amendments to a bill dealing with commercial driver's license.

Lawmakers want the state to remove CDLs from drivers who no longer meet the proper requirements for an immigrant work visa, or to those who pose a risk to public safety.

This move comes after Indiana saw two fatal crashes involving semi-trucks this month.

The bill also requires anyone applying for CDLs to show proof of proficiency in English.

Republican Senator Greg Goode says he thinks this is a common sense move.

And I have witnessed too many times where individuals who are driving semi trucks, who are not paying attention and I fear may not understand the English language.

The changes faced little pushback from Senate Democrats.

So, Niki, will this legislation improve safety on Indiana highways?

Now, now look at this is Friday afternoon.

That bill still doesn't seem to have a conference committee report yet.

We're still trying to see if it passes.

Obviously there's language in there that would require them to understand English, take all their exams in English.

you know, and then there's some movement toward revoking, possibly existing licenses, but it's a little unclear how.

Like what that, like, would they affirmatively just go in and revoke them?

Would they wait till there's an accident or renewal?

I know there's a little bit kind of up in the air to see how that would work.

We have seen, you know, other lawmakers, though, really making this a priority and jumping in and putting this language into legislation here late in the session.

It's just probably fashionable to take that stance and say, you know, let's go after people that shouldn't be driving in the first place and can't read the signs and can't read the safety standards, etc., etc.. I'm not surprised that it's it's become a cause celeb for for certain people.

But I mean this as with every other piece of legislation we've talked about today, there are no silver bullets here.

These are all incremental at best.

And maybe that's what the nature of of the General Assembly.

I mean, anybody who thinks this is going to solve problems and make the roadways, you know, hunky dory for everybody, they're going to be, I think, sorely disappointed.

I mean, this is, you know, the first session that I've covered in quite a while and to see, you know, legislators really react to things in real time and put this language into bills to to, in fact, you know, react to what's happening right now in today's.

Particularly when it's catastrophic, right.

but I think there's a balance here.

I mean, it is hard on employers to go find CDL drivers to begin with.

People who have a sort of or holding a CDL or go go find people that are willing to so Im, That's why that's always been an issue.

The states try to address their workforce programs and grants and and other things.

And so there's a balance here where it's like, okay, well who do we actually let do this?

And I think they're trying to draw the line on this on the real the real life circumstance.

Right.

And it gives them the ability to beat up on immigrants, which is what they would like to do.

That's exactly what it is.

I mean, do we know how many brown haired truck drivers were involved in fatal crashes in the last month?

Should we take the licenses away from them, or if they got their license X number of years ago?

Maybe we should take it away.

I mean, look, there are.

If they're qualified to drive, they're qualified to drive.

If they're not, they should be off the road.

But that's not what we're looking at here.

We're only focusing on people who are have, green cards basically.

although we're probably focused on people who now are citizens but really are from different kinds of countries that we don't really want to have in this country, that it's just it's opportunistic on their part.

Yes, they jumped on it, but they jumped on it not simply because they were fatal accidents, but because they had the opportunity to beat up on immigrants.

Well, when the immigrants, you know, discussion at the statehouse on a couple different pieces of legislation, we've heard, you know, that the companies, that will be responsive bill, that could really impact companies in a number of different ways.

And we don't really understand, how companies may be impacted.

Is that a concern, as lawmakers are considering this type of legislation because companies could be responsible?

Well, of course they're already responsible.

I mean, any CDL driver who causes a crash, I mean that companies are already responsible so.

That the entire industry runs.

Yeah.

So I'm.

Not sure how they would be more responsible, but.

And you would assume that they would think about that when they hired people and frankly, whether they're, whether they're, fluent in English, I'm not sure it's a requirement.

You can see a red light and you can see a green light, and they don't change by language.

What do you think the English speaking you know, provision in this bill?

It's the opportunity to beat up on immigrants.

That's all it is.

I don't think I think that's a good point.

I don't think we'd see so much fervor.

There's always reaction.

The General Assembly is by nature reactive.

You have a tragic crime.

You have a tragic, crash.

You have a tragic anything that there is by nature response.

But I don't think there would have been the fervor and the insistence on moving fast.

If they were.

For this notion of sort of we're being invaded by people who can't, aren't competent to do their jobs.

And hearing from Senator Banks and a number of other people, yes, exert influence.

Well, governor Mike Braun recently celebrated our $10 billion data center plan for Lebanon center in central Indiana.

But some communities are pushing back on these developments.

Farrah Anderson reports on a recent event held by data center opponents.

Lisa Vallee is an organizing director with Just Transition Northwest Indiana, a grassroots environmental justice organization at the hearing, she said communities throughout Indiana do not need to surrender to data centers and that people can stop developments.

It is not inevitable.

It is a choice and we have the power.

There are already dozens of data centers in Indiana with more projects proposed or in development, experts say Indiana is attracting data centers because of affordable land and generous tax incentives passed by the state legislature.

So, Jon, is this, data center is you just going to keep churning in.

And we're going to have data as long as people want to have computing power, and they want to use AI to do what they want to do, we'll need these resources.

I think people must, you know, data centers have become the the boogeyman, the target.

There's nothing inherently bad.

And they're not emitting toxins.

They're not, you know, throwing carcinogens or radioactivity out.

The problem is, I guess they you could argue about how much job creation there is.

It's nothing compared to square footage.

But you also look at the economic benefits of having that kind of computing power and that sense of being on the cutting edge of technology in a state versus a state that has said, not in my backyard.

We're not going to have that craziness here.

We're relying on windmills alone, or the grist mill.

So, I mean, it's it's you can't make everybody happy, but it's, what it is.

I think more is the issue of the perception that these increase costs for everybody else in terms of, electricity.

So maybe the answer isn't to stop them, but to make sure that they're paying.

And we've seen efforts to do this that the people put erecting these facilities and operating these facilities are paying their quote unquote, fair share, just.

Paying whatever.

Whatever it is.

Right?

Yeah.

They're concerned about the environmental impact.

There are and why it's in Lebanon when we we've already had discussion about the lack of water in that area.

And yet we're putting one that well, they use they consume electricity.

Yeah.

Yes, exactly.

And the issue with, with from my point of view, granted, they may be necessary.

Okay.

And they say they're coming here because the cost of land is low.

Why are we giving the incentives that we're giving?

And are we talking about who's giving the incentives the state or the locals?

When we talking about property tax abatement, or are we talking about, you know, incentives from, income tax?

Those kinds of things need to be discussed.

And we need a plan for that.

And they ought to be located in places where there's already existing water and already existing electricity, like former coal plants, places where it makes sense, where the development to the property tax base, which is having problems, would be useful.

Lebanon is not among them.

But it's not that we're the promised land for these things.

I mean, Virginia is the league leader in this in terms of the.

I'm not saying were the promised land, I mean.

It's not as if we everybody was trying to beat a path to Indiana.

No, but but the question is whether whether they're coming anyway or whether we have to give them these hundreds of millions of dollars.

And we have seen, you know, in Eagle Creek specifically, a lot of pushback about the plan to pipe water back and forth.

And, you know, these are the repercussions of establishing large data centers in our.

State, one of the dumber times in human history to local government, to anything.

It's unbelievable.

And it's it's.

It's.

A city.

It's plug and play, right?

Yeah.

Which was just approved a data center.

In Decatur Township, a. Couple.

the idea that we've given these boards of zoning appeals like this immense power to decide where water is going and, yeah, this was intended to say you got to have a brick facade on your house.

It was not intended to say we're in charge of electricity statewide.

Electric power or power policy?

so we're stopping the industrial grade solar field or the windmills or the other things that are of benefit to the entire state of Indiana.

and so if this the psychology of waking up in the morning decide you're going to go protest, the data center is an alien thought that I can't put my head around, but, but but it's not just that.

It's carbon sequestration.

It's solar, it's wind.

It's it's all these concepts.

Nuclear.

but we want we do want the phone to work.

Make sure the phone works.

And my 2000 cat photos are.

Or I can pull those 2000, It's a big.

Yeah.

I bet it's about the same locally.

No, a number of these, data centers.

So passing and people are still pounding the pavement and, making their voices heard.

Are we going to continue listening?

I've part of it, honestly, has become this trendy thing to be against them.

I mean, there are certainly some areas where the water usage and electricity usage was a concern.

I think we've moved past and we now have you know, I think these data center companies are realizing recovering the electricity costs.

You know, we're not going to subsidize.

I just wish I understood which data centers are like handling my medical records versus which ones are doing like ChatGPT caricatures.

Well, good luck with that.

And that is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel has been Democrat Ann Delaney Republican.

Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes host of Indiana lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

Join us next time, because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review.

Is produced.

By WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.